How Loony are the Loons?

[apathoid]

Resistors? Did somebody say resistors? Oh no I'm having a relapse of Electricity class in the 10th grade back in Ohio, NO! Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly for Silver and Gold! NOOooooo!!!!

Ah, the cleansed version! RemoveBush, what is Conspiraider referring to?

 

[RemoveBush]

"We don't look keenly on unsupported claims here. I take it you will present evidence that the US Administration gave these directives to NIST?"

Do you think that this is going to be written down??? The directive given was to analyze the towers "progressive collapse". No where does NIST even address the mechanism for the collapse of the towers. Their own models do not show the collapse proceding the way they claim and refuse to share thier models or infomation for validation. They had to "tweak" the models to get the outcome of the collapse.

This is not what a 'TRUE' scientist does! Tweak the models until the result gives you what you want.

"False. As soon as a given explanation can be ruled out, a good scientist will cease wasting time and effort investigating it. NIST ruled out demolition as an explanation, thus did not waste good time investigating it. They also ruled out a number of other explanations such as a volcano, godzilla, or aliens."

Wrong! The information needs to be anylized and provided. If I analyze a product for failure, I don't just quit because I determined that it could only break in one fashion. I prove it through experiments or imperacle evidence. NIST did NEITHER!

" False. NIST proved it. That was the entire purpose of their report."

Actually, they really did not "prove" anything. Even many Structural Engineers question their hypothesis, which is what it is, and claim that they have flaws in their analysis.

"When the WTC towers collapsed tonnes and tonnes of fuel were buried underground along with the extensive fires burning inside the buildings at the time. Left insulated underground, these fires would continue to burn at extreme temperature until all the fuel was consumed."

Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???

"The briefest glance at the debris will demonstrate some of the pieces were enormous, and the briefest review of the collapses will quickly demonstrate that they did not collapse the same at all, let alone identically."

Really??? So then one of them should look different, right?? They both look identical! Even WTC7 fell in a nice little pile!

"They did. Controlled Demolition is not a plausible scenario."

They did not! They state so in their Q&A! They did not even touch it. Did not test the steel for chemicals that would indicate the presence of explosives or not. This is NOT Scientific. You test for it and if it is ruled out thne it is ruled out. You don't just ignore it because YOU don't believe it to not be possible. Only lazy or fly by scientists do that!

"A couple of workers who will not now confirm their story claim to have found them. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to collaborate their now out-of-date claims."

Gee, I wonder why they now are keeping quiet??? Could there be a threat involved?

" NIST has nothing to do with aircraft crash investigations."

Sorry, that was NTSB but I'm sure you knew what I meant! After all I have mentioned it about a half a dozen times here already. Let's not show any thinking ability that it might be a typo!

"The criminal and technical investigations commenced immediately on 9/11, and many of them are ongoing. They involved input from a myriad of agencies at both the federal and state level."

Wrong! They did not! Rumsfeld had his people digging up things on Sadam so Bush could invade Iraq only hours after 9/11 happened. This does not sound like a focused investigation when you have a large portion of your faculty focusing on finding anything they can to invade a soverign nation because this is what you wanted from the start....

"The investigation the government resisted was an investigation of the government's failure to stop the attacks prior to 9/11. This was not an investigation into the attacks themselves, but essentially an investigation if the US government were negligent at stopping it. This investigation was created at the demand of victims. While I think such an investigation was sensible (to help prevent future attacks) I can understand the government's reluctance (the families of victims just wanted someone to blame)."

NOPE! They did not wish to investigate it at ALL! They, Bush, Refused because he knew the longer he could hold off the more evidence could be destroyed. Did you know that it is a FEDERAL CRIME to remove evidence from a crime scene???? Not one person was demoted or fired. Yet several people were promoted.

HMMMM.... I would love to be promoted at my job for screwing up and killing thousands of people because I did not ensure the piece of equipment worked right that went into that saftey device that the public uses everyday. That would be great...... But then that is not how the real world works is it?????

People who screw up get fired not promoted.... The 911 commission was a white wash. Kissenger, along with the other tools were not provided enough money, did not have expertise to perform investigations and omitted evidence that THEY felt was irrelavent because it was damming.

Kissenger was addressed by the Jersey Girls who proved that the commission was a farce. They asked him if he had any Arabic clients, and when he started squriming they asked him if one of them was named Osama Bin Lauden. He resigned from the commission soon after.....

Nooooo..... The commission was just a straight shootin investigation... My arse!

 

[WildCat]

"We don't look keenly on unsupported claims here. I take it you will present evidence that the US Administration gave these directives to NIST?"

Do you think that this is going to be written down??? The directive given was to analyze the towers "progressive collapse". No where does NIST even address the mechanism for the collapse of the towers. Their own models do not show the collapse proceding the way they claim and refuse to share thier models or infomation for validation. They had to "tweak" the models to get the outcome of the collapse.

This is not what a 'TRUE' scientist does! Tweak the models until the result gives you what you want.

"False. As soon as a given explanation can be ruled out, a good scientist will cease wasting time and effort investigating it. NIST ruled out demolition as an explanation, thus did not waste good time investigating it. They also ruled out a number of other explanations such as a volcano, godzilla, or aliens."

Wrong! The information needs to be anylized and provided. If I analyze a product for failure, I don't just quit because I determined that it could only break in one fashion. I prove it through experiments or imperacle evidence. NIST did NEITHER!

" False. NIST proved it. That was the entire purpose of their report."

Actually, they really did not "prove" anything. Even many Structural Engineers question their hypothesis, which is what it is, and claim that they have flaws in their analysis.

"When the WTC towers collapsed tonnes and tonnes of fuel were buried underground along with the extensive fires burning inside the buildings at the time. Left insulated underground, these fires would continue to burn at extreme temperature until all the fuel was consumed."

Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???

"The briefest glance at the debris will demonstrate some of the pieces were enormous, and the briefest review of the collapses will quickly demonstrate that they did not collapse the same at all, let alone identically."

Really??? So then one of them should look different, right?? They both look identical! Even WTC7 fell in a nice little pile!

"They did. Controlled Demolition is not a plausible scenario."

They did not! They state so in their Q&A! They did not even touch it. Did not test the steel for chemicals that would indicate the presence of explosives or not. This is NOT Scientific. You test for it and if it is ruled out thne it is ruled out. You don't just ignore it because YOU don't believe it to not be possible. Only lazy or fly by scientists do that!

"A couple of workers who will not now confirm their story claim to have found them. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to collaborate their now out-of-date claims."

Gee, I wonder why they now are keeping quiet??? Could there be a threat involved?

" NIST has nothing to do with aircraft crash investigations."

Sorry, that was NTSB but I'm sure you knew what I meant! After all I have mentioned it about a half a dozen times here already. Let's not show any thinking ability that it might be a typo!

"The criminal and technical investigations commenced immediately on 9/11, and many of them are ongoing. They involved input from a myriad of agencies at both the federal and state level."

Wrong! They did not! Rumsfeld had his people digging up things on Sadam so Bush could invade Iraq only hours after 9/11 happened. This does not sound like a focused investigation when you have a large portion of your faculty focusing on finding anything they can to invade a soverign nation because this is what you wanted from the start....

"The investigation the government resisted was an investigation of the government's failure to stop the attacks prior to 9/11. This was not an investigation into the attacks themselves, but essentially an investigation if the US government were negligent at stopping it. This investigation was created at the demand of victims. While I think such an investigation was sensible (to help prevent future attacks) I can understand the government's reluctance (the families of victims just wanted someone to blame)."

NOPE! They did not wish to investigate it at ALL! They, Bush, Refused because he knew the longer he could hold off the more evidence could be destroyed. Did you know that it is a FEDERAL CRIME to remove evidence from a crime scene???? Not one person was demoted or fired. Yet several people were promoted.

HMMMM.... I would love to be promoted at my job for screwing up and killing thousands of people because I did not ensure the piece of equipment worked right that went into that saftey device that the public uses everyday. That would be great...... But then that is not how the real world works is it?????

People who screw up get fired not promoted.... The 911 commission was a white wash. Kissenger, along with the other tools were not provided enough money, did not have expertise to perform investigations and omitted evidence that THEY felt was irrelavent because it was damming.

Kissenger was addressed by the Jersey Girls who proved that the commission was a farce. They asked him if he had any Arabic clients, and when he started squriming they asked him if one of them was named Osama Bin Lauden. He resigned from the commission soon after.....

Nooooo..... The commission was just a straight shootin investigation... My arse!

If you're so smart how come you can't figure out how to use the "quote" button?

 

[RemoveBush]

"No, if you increase the resistance the demand from the supply will increase to maintain the voltage across the load. This increase will continue until the supply is unable to meet the requirements of the resistance. This will make the voltage drop, because the current demanded from the supply is unable to maintain the potential across the load."

You really don't know one thing about what you are talking about......

Here.....

V = 10 volts.

R = 1,000 Ohms.

I = 10 mA

Now if R is increased to 2,000 Ohms....

I = 5 mA....

Sorry, but the DEMAND does not go up with an increase in resistance. It goes up with a decrease in resistance.

If R = 10 Ohms

I = 1 AMP (Larger demand on the supply) PERIOD!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???

desks, papers, carpet, furnitire, even people are all fuel for a fire

They did not! They state so in their Q&A! They did not even touch it. Did not test the steel for chemicals that would indicate the presence of explosives or not. This is NOT Scientific. You test for it and if it is ruled out thne it is ruled out. You don't just ignore it because YOU don't believe it to not be possible. Only lazy or fly by scientists do that!

chemical residues arent the only evidence explosives leave behind, the kinds of cuts they make are fairly obvious, plus youd see irgnitors, det cord, casings and unexplosided charges all over ground zero, none of this was present so theres no need to test for chemical residues, it would be a waste of time and money

Sorry, that was NTSB but I'm sure you knew what I meant! After all I have mentioned it about a half a dozen times here already. Let's not show any thinking ability that it might be a typo!

just because one yahoo on the internet thinks theres a problem doesnt mean there is, theres a good analysis of the FDR data on this forum if you care to take 5 minutes to search for it

 

[RemoveBush]

"Sorry, noise in the picovolt range doesnt bother most electronics and it certainly wouldn't be considered "large". Maybe it bothers the nuclear physicists, but not electronics people."

Obviously you have not tested DAC's and trying to measure 35uV resolution with a 1mV noise floor! Yes pV of noise will be a concern, especially if you have multiple areas that are generating it when you need to have a noise floor less than 15uV to measure your 35uV resolution.

I guess you only deal in KV?

 

[babazaroni]

If you're so smart how come you can't figure out how to use the "quote" button?

He does know how to use it. The purpose of not quoting is to make his posts look different from 28k and make tracing arguements more difficult.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

"Sorry, noise in the picovolt range doesnt bother most electronics and it certainly wouldn't be considered "large". Maybe it bothers the nuclear physicists, but not electronics people."

Obviously you have not tested DAC's and trying to measure 35uV resolution with a 1mV noise floor! Yes pV of noise will be a concern, especially if you have multiple areas that are generating it when you need to have a noise floor less than 15uV to measure your 35uV resolution.

I guess you only deal in KV?

so what kind of equipment are you working on that has these kinds of tolerances? i dont think anything in my car needs to be calibrated to the uV level

 

[RemoveBush]

"If you're so smart how come you can't figure out how to use the "quote" button?"

Becaise I don't need to!!!

 

[babazaroni]

"Sorry, noise in the picovolt range doesnt bother most electronics and it certainly wouldn't be considered "large". Maybe it bothers the nuclear physicists, but not electronics people."

Obviously you have not tested DAC's and trying to measure 35uV resolution with a 1mV noise floor! Yes pV of noise will be a concern, especially if you have multiple areas that are generating it when you need to have a noise floor less than 15uV to measure your 35uV resolution.

RB, what are you trying to measure with a DAC?

 

[WildCat]

He does know how to use it. The purpose of not quoting is to make his posts look different from 28k and make tracing arguements more difficult.

I doubt it, RB apparently thinks that WTC 1 and 2 were stripped of all combustible material prior to 9/11. Funny no one noticed this!

 

[RemoveBush]

"chemical residues arent the only evidence explosives leave behind, the kinds of cuts they make are fairly obvious, plus youd see irgnitors, det cord, casings and unexplosided charges all over ground zero, none of this was present so theres no need to test for chemical residues, it would be a waste of time and money"

Perhaps they were remote contolled by radio and not cord??? There are plenty of ways to concel the evidence. Small minds can't see a big picture.

"just because one yahoo on the internet thinks theres a problem doesnt mean there is, theres a good analysis of the FDR data on this forum if you care to take 5 minutes to search for it"

One "yahoo"??? So now professional pilots, repair people, atc are "Yahoos"?????

The FOIA was provided to 911 pilots for truth and they found this information from their analysis. NIST refuses to address the discrepencies. Perhaps they are wrong, but why the refusal to talk with them and provide them with how and why they are wrong??

Refusing to discuss this, with professionals, surely points to something amis.

Sorry, but where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[RemoveBush]

For those close minded individuals....

http://www.implosionworld.com/hayeshomes.htm

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was a cloudy Saturday morning late in May. That morning at 9 am, the Hayes Homes housing projects in Newark, N.J., would be dealt a fatal blow. Two 12-story buildings separated by a smokestack loomed over an otherwise graded site."

Then it says....

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the days leading up to the implosion, crews used pneumatic drills to bore 1,300 holes within the reinforced concrete columns of the two structures and another 40 in the smokestack. It took 180 pounds of nitroglycerin-based dynamite to trigger the collapse."

So then.... It does not take TONS as you people will lead everyone to believe.

Let's do a little math here.....

The WTC's were 110 stories tall. These buildings were 12 stories.

If we divide 110 by 12 we get 9.166666. Lets just make it a nice round number, say 10.

So now. They were able to blow up TWO 12 story buildings with only a 180 pounds of explosives..... Let's multiply that by our 10 and that becomes 1800 pounds between TWO buildings. Just for saftey sake lets say they added extra to ensure the collapse..... So let's make this an even 2,000 pounds! That's a 1,000 pounds per tower.

NOT 40 TONS as has been proclaimed.

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Anything that stands vertically want to fall due to gravity's effect on it," explained Loizeaux, a 25-year implosion veteran, "We really aren't blowing the structure up. We're using explosives as a catalyst.""

This is what the Truthers have been saying all along, but you refuse to accept it and even with a quote here from experts stating similar statements you will argue against it.

Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.

Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]> 15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND
An Explosive 96 Hours With the Team at Protec"

HMMMMMM...... It's just not so impossible now is it?????

After futher reading, this part may mean that the CD's were preped and they just filmed them? Needs more investigation.
[/FONT]

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sorry, but where there is smoke there is fire.

It's funny to hear a twoofer say this since they don't believe that this building was on fire.

 

[babazaroni]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]> 15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND
An Explosive 96 Hours With the Team at Protec"

HMMMMMM...... It's just not so impossible now is it?????
[/FONT]

Only with your reasoning skills.

Not possible to do the jobs that quick in stealth mode.

 

[apathoid]

Obviously you have not tested DAC's and trying to measure 35uV resolution with a 1mV noise floor! Yes pV of noise will be a concern, especially if you have multiple areas that are generating it when you need to have a noise floor less than 15uV to measure your 35uV resolution.

I guess you only deal in KV?

OK, first of all, a microvolt(10^-6) is one million picovolts(10^-12), which is 0.000000000001 volts. Therefore, a pV is a million times smaller than a microvolt. If your noise tolerance is 15 uV, that would equate to 15,000,000 picovolts, so no - noise in the pV range won't be a concern.(I don't think it could even be considered noise.) The only thing in electronics I've seen commonly measured in the pico range is capacitance.

Secondly, no I don't test DACs and most of the equipment I work on, as well as the test equipment I use, has tolerances in the millvolt range.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

For those close minded individuals....

http://www.implosionworld.com/hayeshomes.htm

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was a cloudy Saturday morning late in May. That morning at 9 am, the Hayes Homes housing projects in Newark, N.J., would be dealt a fatal blow. Two 12-story buildings separated by a smokestack loomed over an otherwise graded site."

Then it says....[/FONT]

So you regard implosionworld.com as an accurate and credible source on the subject of controlled demolition?

You essentially agree with thier position on CD of the WTC then?

 

[Gravy]

No where does NIST even address the mechanism for the collapse of the towers.

False. You clearly haven't bothered to read even the executive summaries or the NIST FAQ. How can you presume to argue against the "official version" if you don't know what it is?

Their own models do not show the collapse proceding the way they claim

Present your evidence. Now would be good.

They had to "tweak" the models to get the outcome of the collapse.

This is not what a 'TRUE' scientist does! Tweak the models until the result gives you what you want.

Had you bothered to read the report, you would see all the examples of NIST "tweaking" the inputs downward, assuming less damage, in order to match real-world observations. Why can't you conspiracists get a grasp of the fact that NIST was modeling an event that happened in the real world?

Wrong! The information needs to be anylized and provided. If I analyze a product for failure, I don't just quit because I determined that it could only break in one fashion. I prove it through experiments or imperacle evidence. NIST did NEITHER!

Empirical. And yes, they did. Please read their report, and respond to specifics in it.

Actually, they really did not "prove" anything. Even many Structural Engineers question their hypothesis, which is what it is, and claim that they have flaws in their analysis.

Where can I read their peer-reviewed papers? Oh, that's right, there are none.

Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???

You absolutely have to be kidding. Here are some of the things that would have comprised that fuel:

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (a high estimate)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but a large percentage were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long. Add carpet backing or padding to that.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones covered in plastic.

– Thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything covered in plastic.

– All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by repair and maintenance crews.

– The contents of over 100 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies.

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. and one of the largest, with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and snack bars.

When you stop to think about it, it really adds up.

Some sources for the liquid spill info, and general WTC pile fire info:

http://wardgriffin.com/fire.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/f.../appendixl.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs..._materials.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Appendix_D.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

Really??? So then one of them should look different, right?? They both look identical! Even WTC7 fell in a nice little pile!

False.

​

They did not! They state so in their Q&A! They did not even touch it. Did not test the steel for chemicals that would indicate the presence of explosives or not. This is NOT Scientific. You test for it and if it is ruled out thne it is ruled out. You don't just ignore it because YOU don't believe it to not be possible. Only lazy or fly by scientists do that!

How about "high-energy weapons," Remove? There is just as much reason to believe that they were used as there is to believe that explosives were used. Why aren't you calling for the Reynolds/Wood/King/Fetzer death beam scenario to be tested? This is a serious question.

Gee, I wonder why they now are keeping quiet??? Could there be a threat involved?

No, because their story is preposterous.

Sorry, that was NTSB but I'm sure you knew what I meant! After all I have mentioned it about a half a dozen times here already. Let's not show any thinking ability that it might be a typo!

By law, the FBI is the lead investigative agency in aviation crashes where criminal activity is suspected. The NTSB was involved at all crash scenes and in the analysis of the data recorders. What's your problem with that?

Wrong! They did not!

So you're saying that what was by far the largest criminal investigation in history simply didn't happen? That's an interesting take that I haven't heard before.

Rumsfeld had his people digging up things on Sadam so Bush could invade Iraq only hours after 9/11 happened. This does not sound like a focused investigation when you have a large portion of your faculty focusing on finding anything they can to invade a soverign nation because this is what you wanted from the start....

Name a single one of the 7,000 FBI agents involved in the investigation who was "focused" on invading Iraq. Please do this as soon as possible. I'm very curious to know what you come up with.

NOPE! They did not wish to investigate it at ALL! They, Bush, Refused because he knew the longer he could hold off the more evidence could be destroyed. Did you know that it is a FEDERAL CRIME to remove evidence from a crime scene???? Not one person was demoted or fired. Yet several people were promoted.

Name the law that was broken. As soon as possible, please.

Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures." http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)".
"The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models."

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~csce/Page_files/events/upcoming/National_lecture_2003.html

HMMMM.... I would love to be promoted at my job for screwing up and killing thousands of people

Who screwed up and killed thousands of people? I thought the terrorists were the murderers. Provide names, please, and the specific crimes they committed. As soon as possible, please. I'm VERY interested to hear your response.

People who screw up get fired not promoted.... The 911 commission was a white wash.

Then you won't have any trouble naming one false conclusion in the 9/11 Commission report, and providing evidence to back your claim. Please do so as soon as possible.

Anything new, then, Remove? Or are you just here to rant foolishly?

And if you're going to continue posting, please be considerate to others and use the quote button. If you do not, others must then edit your posts when replying to you.

 

[Gravy]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
HMMMMMM...... It's just not so impossible now is it?????

After futher reading, this part may mean that the CD's were preped and they just filmed them? Needs more investigation.
[/FONT]

He IS evolving! Congratulations, Remove. Let us know what you find. (p.s. We already know the answer.)

So do you agree with Protec's paper about the possibility of controlled demolition at the WTC?

 

[A W Smith]

For those close minded individuals....

http://www.implosionworld.com/hayeshomes.htm

"It was a cloudy Saturday morning late in May. That morning at 9 am, the Hayes Homes housing projects in Newark, N.J., would be dealt a fatal blow. Two 12-story buildings separated by a smokestack loomed over an otherwise graded site."

Then it says....

"In the days leading up to the implosion, crews used pneumatic drills to bore 1,300 holes within the reinforced concrete columns of the two structures and another 40 in the smokestack. It took 180 pounds of nitroglycerin-based dynamite to trigger the collapse."

So then.... It does not take TONS as you people will lead everyone to believe.

Let's do a little math here.....

The WTC's were 110 stories tall. These buildings were 12 stories.

If we divide 110 by 12 we get 9.166666. Lets just make it a nice round number, say 10.

So now. They were able to blow up TWO 12 story buildings with only a 180 pounds of explosives..... Let's multiply that by our 10 and that becomes 1800 pounds between TWO buildings. Just for saftey sake lets say they added extra to ensure the collapse..... So let's make this an even 2,000 pounds! That's a 1,000 pounds per tower.

NOT 40 TONS as has been proclaimed.

""Anything that stands vertically want to fall due to gravity's effect on it," explained Loizeaux, a 25-year implosion veteran, "We really aren't blowing the structure up. We're using explosives as a catalyst.""

This is what the Truthers have been saying all along, but you refuse to accept it and even with a quote here from experts stating similar statements you will argue against it.

Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.

Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

"> 15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND
An Explosive 96 Hours With the Team at Protec"

HMMMMMM...... It's just not so impossible now is it?????

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After futher reading, this part may mean that the CD's were preped and they just filmed them? Needs more investigation.[/FONT]

Above is an excellent example of quote mining, here is the most relevant portion that was edited out

In the case of Hayes Homes, floors one, three, six and nine were targeted. Using four Bobcat skid steer loaders with grapple buckets, crews proceeded to selectively remove portions of the non-load bearing and load bearing walls and isolate the key structural supports where explosives would be planted. An added step involved pre-weakening the stairwells and elevator shafts so they would give way properly during implosion.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are comparing a 12 story steel reinforced concrete 1950s housing project with a quarter mile high tower with core columns at is base having a 3 inch hi strength steel section. Sorry but your x10 math wont work like that. You have proved that you are not an engineer.